The 10-Square Myth |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | ||||
Oneeye
New Poster Joined: 30 Apr 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Posted: 30 Apr 2014 at 21:06 |
|||
Do to the respect of everyone in this great forum .(bows to everyone here ) . Now with that done the 10 square rule is a respectful thing in my honest veiw . i always try to be respectful here in this great gaming community . yes i get ur point myll abt the 10 square rule . But again the reason im here is cause the illy community is the best and awesome and very respectful for the most part. Hence why i always igm before i do anything in anyones 10 square city range . its not abt taking its abt not sacrificing my code for res or a city spot . (bows to all the great and amazing ppl in this forum )
|
||||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I especially agree with Angrim's last point.
I've also noticed that players in favor of local skirmishes tend to be big, concentrated military players facing less able opponents. The reason alliances provide mutual defense is exactly so some 10 city juggernaut with 4 sat accounts doesn't punch some 10k pop player into outer space. While I think it's nice to advocate smaller skirmishes and wars, that is largely limited by the willingness of the defeated party to gracefully accept defeat when they have the option to call in more powerful allies. i.e. This is how a useless Trove Mine causes 100+ cities of wreckage. |
||||
Angrim
Postmaster General Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Edited by Angrim - 25 Apr 2014 at 00:15 |
||||
Myzel
Wordsmith Joined: 19 Feb 2012 Status: Offline Points: 101 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I wonder how think this will work. What if you seriously compete on a local level and one side loses? You think they'll be like 'oh well, looks like I lost. Guess I'll just give up that rare mineral that I had claimed.' No, I'd say the losing side will look for help from allies, which is an obvious move. In response the other side will do so as well, and then you'll have what you call a war. Actually, not standing alone when someone attacks you is exactly why people are in alliances.
Those resources are controlled through the threat of force. Let's be honest, it's not actually words that are stopping you from taking resources by force (or whatever). Why would they? What's stopping you is the fact that you'll suffer the consequences if you try to do so.
|
||||
Angrim
Postmaster General Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
Deranzin
Postmaster Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
No, because I do not have any. Seriously though, the answer is still no. Because in order for my alliance to take action, I would have had to inform them over that ... and before informing my alliance I would have first :
Is that clear enough on how trivial I consider your proposed "change" .?.
You are setting them up as far as I am concerned ... they might be not ignorant to gameplay, but if you convince a newbie that he is doing the wrong thing right then he is bound to start stepping over toes sooner or later ...
"they are .?. Well, then were are they .?. "we" would all like to hear "their" new and fresh approach and not some old bitter veteran's hiding behind a new account and sprouting propaganda in the name of invisible newbies ... my guess is that most of them do not even know what you are posting in their name ...
I didn't make an argument ... I made a "point" Edited by Deranzin - 24 Apr 2014 at 23:42 |
||||
Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||||
Starry
Postmaster Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 614 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
+1 Leave the new players out of this, using them as an excuse because you don't like the 10 square rule is a poor excuse to start conflict. If you are counseling new players to ignore the 10 square rule and take what they want, you are doing a disservice to new players, this community and the game. If you want to start a conflict over the ten square rule, do so on your own. Since you refuse to disclose your main account, I suspect you have an axe to bear.
|
||||
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
||||
Myll
New Poster Joined: 25 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Deranzin (and others), Quite the opposite - accepting local skirmishes/battles/incidents (pick your term short of War) -- this is what the game needs to avoid wars. We seem to have lost the ability in this game to compete at a local level without tieing our hands to policies that in themselves lead to a war. Deranzin - if I right now ventured out and killed your harvesters, would H? declare war on us, or would you settle it locally first and foremost? You have to think about that question, because it is at the core of how alliances approach the game. I think two players can battle and compete without dragging their entire alliance into a war. I have mostly new players in Tsunami [WAVE] - well over 40 members now, and we will be a 90+ member alliance one day. We have a mix of a few returning players and some alt characters, but the majority are new to the game but not new to MMORPGs (many from LoU) --- i.e. they are gamers and not ignorant as to gameplay. They are just as vocal to me that your long-standing Dogma is idiotic!!! You have to control resources through force, not words, but you are also missing the point because you're sucked into the Dogma. We need a fresh new approach to the game, which remains capable of local competition and actively playing the game, rather than the stodgy approaches that hoped for control through a war that references the violation of a published alliance policy. Again, none of your arguments have changed the fact that there is no "10-Square Rule" and that what we have is a 10-Square Myth. Myll
|
||||
Deranzin
Postmaster Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Translation : You are going to exploit newbies to start a war and drag some big alliance into it to make them look bad and possibly have some other pile upon them. Considering that iirc you are an older player that is not disclosing his alt (correct me if I am wrong), I find your motives quite blatantly obvious. |
||||
Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||||
Myll
New Poster Joined: 25 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
KillerPoodle, There's many motives for this post - that's why people post here in the first place, to make a point. It's not about preserving WAVE, it's about yours and others' long-term bias/Dogma over the way the game sees land control and a false sense of ownership. Your alliance, most of all, held this ideal up for so long and it became a game norm. It's time to "Break the Phalanx" KP, and begin to disavow that stance. You should see, most of all, that land can only be controlled by force and not by words or policy. Even Clausewitz made this clear in real life: "War is Policy by other Means." Yourself and other large alliances have tried and tried to uphold your Policies over the last few years - you enforced yours with many great war victories, and now your opponents have upheld theirs (except for the regional hegemony you now enjoy within Azura). You, as one of the primary spokesmen for the ongoing Dogma of this issue, are certain to be opposed to it, but at least give some thought to the need to change the approach across the map, across the game. This issue isn't going away, and with each additional new player to the game the bias either gets reinforced in Dogma-teaching Training Alliances, or in alliances such as mine. I believe there will be more alliances like mine going forward, but regardless what side of the fence you sit on, friction will exist. For yourself and other game veterans, it would be refreshing to see a new approach to this issue, to clearly divide your policies for Settlement Restriction vs Resource Harvesting and not try and lump them together into your so-called "10-Square Rule." My alliance will totally respect armies on the ground guarding harvesters, and we will certainly respect an army who comes to the site and kills off unprotected harvesters, but we don't respect policies that only show bluster without action on the site. What your policies result in, KP, is for these type issues to lead to war, rather than mere battles. We/Tsunami [WAVE] do not seek war, especially now, but we don't mind battles. This game has lacked battles far too often and far too long, and unfortunately your alliance and others went straight to the "Declare War" option far too often, and it shows in your approach even within this thread. Go ahead and kill off our unprotected harvesters if you feel they are within your perceived radius of Divine Mineral Rights, but don't expect finesse and groveling messages all the time, from all alliances. Myll
|
||||
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |